Free Response to Motion - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 1 of 24

, I ^ z , ,

ChadAustin.Hsq.SBN 235457 3129lndiaStreet S a nD i e g oC A 9 2 1 0 3 - 6 0 1 4 . (: T e l e p h o n e 6 1 9 )2 9 7 - 8 8 8 8 Facsimile: (619)295-1401 Attorneyfbr Plaintiff,JAMES M. KINDER. an individual

5 6 7 8 9 10
) ) t2 Plaintiff, ) ) l3 ) v' ) 14 ) I. | J I I A R R A I I ' S E N T I I R T A I N M I T N Tn c .a n d ) I < DOES I throueh100.inclusive. ) ) l6 Defendants. 17 18 l9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

II

.TAMES KINDER, M.

Case No. 07 ('Y 2226DMS (A.lB) .ludge: Magistrate : Hon. [)ana M. Sabraw Hon.Anlhony.f. Ilattaglia

PLAINTTFF.IAMES . KTNDER'S M O P P O S I T I O NT O D E F E N D A N T ' S MOTION TO DISMISS; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF 'I)ate: : l'ime January 200t3 7. l 0 : 3 0a . m . Courtroom: l3

I. INTRODUCTION TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIRATTORNEYS RIICORD: OF PI,EASE
TAKE NOTICE THAT Plaintiff JAMES M. KINDER herebyopposes Defendant HARRAH'S ENTER-fAINMENT, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss,for the reasons lbrth bclow. set

20 21
22 23

24 ur
)5

ilt

26

27 28

ut
NO. 07 CV 2226DMS(AJB) CASE

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 2 of 24

, 2 3 A + 5
A u

II. ARGUMENT A. PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO A PRE-FILING ORDER IN SAN DIEGO SUPERIOR IQURT IF HE IS REPRESENTEDBY COUNSEL Defendant inconectlyasserts this actionwas commenced violationof a pre-filing that in orderthat requiredPlaintiffto obtainleaveof the Presiding Judgeof the SanDiego Superior Court prior to commencing new civil actionin saidcourt. The pre-filingorderto which a Defendant refbrsdoesnot apply in this caseas Plaintiffcommenced actionwhile reprcsented this by counsel, attorney ChadAustin.
^

' 8 ^

I

l0 II 12 13 t4 Attachedheretoand incorporated hereinby ref'erence Exhibit A, a ruling fiom now is federalDistrict JudgeJanisSammartino, which shefoundthat Plaintifl-sactionin Kintler v. in Adeccrt, SanDiego Superior Court CascNo. GIC882000, was not commenced violalion of the in

'l'his by ChadAustin. ruling corrcctlystated 1E pre-filingorderin that he was represented attorney l) 16 17
l a ro

thatCalilbrniaCode Civil Procedure of (CCP)$ 391.7only grants authorily a.iudgc enteran to to orderbarringa personfbundto be a vexatious litigantfiom commencing actionwithout leave an
of court while acting In Propria Persona. BecausePlaintiff did not commence this action 1n

t9 20

PropriaPersona, rather but through counsel. CCP$ 391.7 not does apply.Moreover,.ludge

correctly noted "there nothing suggest theprc-liling that is 1o that order against Mr. 11 Sammartino zl
22
^a

Kinder includes prohibitionagainst a counsel filing suit on his behalf."

)4 L1

Plaintiff understands Defendant that attempts rely on In re Shieh,l 7 Cal.App to .4tt'7754,

25
26 2 2g

(1993), did Adecco theabove-referenced However. re Shiehhas 1166-1167 as in case. In 7 ) CASE 07CV 2226 M S AJ B) NO. D (

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 3 of 24

,,
t

nothing to do with the factsof this caseand any allegationto the contraryby Defendantwill be wholly unsupported any facts. by

2
a

4

Moreover, it appearsto Plaintiff to be a rolal non sequitur for Defendant to claim that

5 6
, 8
q

Plaintiffallegedly "satisfying prefiling not the requirementswhichhe is subject" to [siclorder
somehowrenders complaintunableto "statea claim uponwhich relicf may be granted." his 'l'he Motion to Dismiss,Page1, Lines 13-141. simplefact is that,all of its smoke [Defendant's

7

screens aside, Defendant violated law clearly without has the and defensc. B.

l0 1I
l a

LL

DEFENDANT'S REPEATED TORTIOUSACTIVITY WITHIN THE STATEOF CALIEQBNIAQVER THE COURSE MORE THAN THREE YEARS OF
SUBJECTSIT TO THE GENERAL AND SPECIFIC JURISDICTION OF THIS

l3 14
l ( 'J

1.

Authoritv on Jurisdiction. "A courtof this statemay exercise.iurisdiction any basisnot inconsistent on with thc

l6 17 l8 lg 20
)1

Constitution this state of the UnitedStates."Cal. CodeCiv. Pro.(CCI))I 410.010. of or California'siurisdictional statute co-cxtensive is with lbderaldue process requircmcnts; jurisdictionalinquiriesunderstatelaw and 1'ederal process therefbre, due slandards collapse into one,and the Court considers only whetherthe exercise iurisdiction of over the def-endant comportswith due process.GlencoreGrain Rotterdam B.V. v. Shivnuth Rai Harnarain Co.,284 F . 3 d11 1 4 .11 2 3O ' nC i r . 2 0 0 2 ) .

22

24 25 26 2 2g Depending the def'endant's on contactwith Califomia,the Court may exercise either generalor specificjurisdiction. A nonresidcnt defcndantmay be may bc subjcctto gcneral 7 3 C A S E O . 0 7C V 2 2 2 6 M S( A J B ) N D

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 4 of 24

I

jurisdictiononly if its contacts the forum stateare"substantial...continuous systematic." in and

Mining Co., 342 U.S. 437,445-446 (1952). If not subject general 2 Perkinsv. Benguet to
.)
J

jurisdictionin a state, defendant a may nonetheless subject specific be to iurisdictionin that state. The court applies three-part when assessing jurisdiction: a test specific ( I ) The nonresident defendant must purposefully directhis activitiesor consummate sometransaction with the fbrum or residentthereof"or perfbrm someact by which he purposefully availshimselfof the privilegeof conducting aclivitiesin the lbrum, thereby invokingthe benefits and protections its laws: of (2) the claim must be one which arises of or rclates the defendanl's out to lbrurn-related activities; and (3) the exercise ofjurisdiction mustcomport with fair playand substantialjusticc, i.a..it must be reasonable.

4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 1l

1 2 Lukev.Luke,817F.2d1416,149" Cir.1987); (21 B a n c r o . f i & M a . s t e n,c .,^ 2 2 3 F . 3 d a t 1 0 8 6 Ir s 13 14 l5
the defendant "present compelling"casedemonstrating thc cxercise to a that ol-.jurisdiction (9'nCir.2000). If the plaintiffsatisfies first two prongsof the abovetest.the burdenshiftst6 the

Id. 471 1 6 would be unreasonable. (citingBurger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, tJ.S. 462. 476-78

1l l8 19 20 2l

(1 e 8 s ) .
2. Plaintiff Need Only Allese a Valid Jurisdiction Theorv and Make Out a Prin a Facie CaseRegardingJurisdiction to Dcfeat Defendant'sMotion.

Defendant's Motion to Dismissapparently testsPlaintiff s.lurisdictional theory-that

madeprerecorded telemarketing callsto Californiaresident(s). 22 Defendant
z)

a.

24 25

Thc Court DoesNot Review the Evidenceto Determinethe Validitv of Plaintiffs Theorv of Jurisdiction and PlaintifPs Theory. Basedon Defendant's Unlawful Telemarketingto California Residents. Valid. is In evaluatingPlaintiffls jurisdictional theory,the Court needonly determinewhetherthe

26 27 28
NO. 07 CV 2226DMS(AJB) CASE

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 5 of 24

, I 2 3 4 ' 5

facts alleged.if true, are sufficientto establish jurisdiction. Credit L),onnai.s Securities(USA), Inc. v. Alcantra 183F.3d 151, 153 (2nd Cir. 1999). Plaintiff s rheoryofjurisdiction,as is clearly setforth in the Complaint, that Defendant is knowinglymadeprerecorded telemarketing callsto Plaintifls localSanDiegonumber assigned a paging to servicc. I. Defendant is Liable Based on lts ()nlawful, Prerecorded Telemurketing to a Coltfornia Resident

6 7 8 g 10 II 12 l3 t4 l5 16 17 18 19 b. 20 21 22

It is unlawful for any personor entityto disseminate prerecorded a message any 1o numberassigned a pagingservice, to without the calledparty'sexprc.\,\ permission.47 tl.S.C. $ 227 (b) ( I ) (A) (iii). Underthe TCPA, the partyon whosebehalfa solicitation madebcars is ultimateresponsibility any violations.S'ce lbr Release Number95-310 o1'the}redcral Communications Commission, DocketNo. 92-90.l0 FCC Rcd I 2391(1995), CC pars.34-35. Calls placedby an agentaretreated if the telemarketer as itself placedthe call. /r/. Based this on authority,Defendant responsible the legalviolationsof its prerecorded is fbr telemarketing calls to Plaintiff. Because Defendant reached to many (but an as of yct unknownnumbcr)of out California'sresidents, includingI'laintiff, Californiahasgencral and specilicjurisdictionover Def-endant. Plaintiff Need Onlv Make a Priza f,acreShowins of Factsto Defeatthe Motion to Dismissto the Extent That it ContestsPlaintiffls Allesed Facts. To the extentthat the instantmotion challenges Plaintitl's allegedf'acts, Plaintiff need only makea prima.facieshowingof factsestablishing basisfor personal a iurisdictionover

:'^ l4 25 26

defendant defeat rt. HaruisRutslqt Co, Ins. Services, v. Bell & Clements to & Inc. Ltd.328 F.3d 1122,1129(gthCir. 2003). In decidingwhetherPlaintiff hasmadea prima.fucie case, Court the must aocept uncontroverted allegations the Complaintand resolvelactualconllicls in the in

;

"

s

C A S EN O . 0 7 C V 2 2 2 6D M S ( A J B )

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 6 of 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 1l 12 13 l4
1 <

parlies'declarations Plaintiffs favor. WNS, in Inc. v. Farron,884l-.2d200,20415th 1989). Cir.

6f course, wherethe jurisdictional factsare"intertwined with the meritsof'the action." determination thejurisdictional of issuemay determine meritsof the action. Data Discoverv, the Inc. v. Syslems'l'ec'hnology As.sociates, 1nc..557 F.2d.1285-1286, 2 19'r'Cir.1977).In sucha fn. case,itis pre/brablethatthis determination madeat trial wherea plaintilf may present bc his casein a coherent, orderlyfashion, and without the risk o1'prejudicing caseon the merits. 1rl. his

For the manyreasons forth in this Memorandum, set Plaintiff makesa prima /acic s h o w i n g o f l a c t s e s t a b l i s h i n g a b a s i s f o r . i u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r D e f 'A t t d a v c.r y l c a s t . t h c r c i s a en hcnt factualconf'lict to Plaintiff s and Defendant's as cvidencc, and this conllicl is dccidcdin Plaintifls l-avor.Regardless, jurisdictionallbctsare so intertwined the with the meritsthat the Court shouldpostpone determination the.iurisdictional of issueuntil trial.a./ier I'lainti// hushutJ the benefito.fproper discovery. where Plaintiff will prove that Defendantactively and knowingly disseminated unlawfulprerecorded telemarketing messages Califbrniarcsidents. to including Plaintiff. 3. Because Plaintiff s Claims Arise Out of Defendant'sUnlawful Telemarketing Within the Stateof California. California Has Jurisdiction Over Defendant Plaintiff s claimsariseout of Defbndant's forum-related unlawlul tclcmarkcting that purposefully Defendant directed towardsPlaintiff in Calilbrnia,so this Court'sexercise of

tr

l6 1l l8 tg 20 rr ,', 23
)4

personaljurisdiction Def'endant reasonable it comports over is and with "fair playandsubstantial justice." 7 6 CASE 07CV22 26 M S AJ B) NO. D (

25 26 2 2g

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 7 of 24

I
I

a.

z
1 J A T

Defendant'sContactsResultedFrom Its Own Actions That Createtl a "substantial Connection" BetweenDefendantand California and Thereby Enabled California to ExercisePersonalJurisdiction Over Defendant I. Acts Committed Outside Caldornia "Causing Effect" Within Caldornia Suffice to Estublish "Purposeful Direction " If a nonresident, actingoutside state, the intentionally causes injurieswithin the state,

5 6 7 8 9 10 1l 12
1 a I J

then he must "reasonably anticipate"being haledinto court in the forum sIate. Qaltler v. ,lones ( 1984)465 tJ.S.783.790,I 04 S.Ct.1482.1487. that mattersis that the nonresident's All liability-producing acts have foreseeable consequences the forum state.Ilurqer King in (1 C o r p .v . R u d z e w i c z 9 8 5 ) 7 1 U . S .4 6 2 , 4 7 9 - 4 8 0 ,0 5S . C t . 2 1 7 4 . 2 1 8 6 . 4 1

ln Calder v. Jones,supra, the intentionaland allegedlytortious actionsof Florida residents who wrote and published def-amatory a articlein Floridafbr publicationin a national magazine wereexpressly aimedat Calilornia.because articletargeted Calilbrniaresident. thc a Similarly,here,Plaintiff showsthat Defendant's unlawfultelemarketing was directed a call at

14 l5 l6

(thc dissemination o1'aprcrccorded tclemarketing is an intentional call act). 1 7 SanDiego resident

l8 l9 20

As in the Culdercase. wherea writer was deemed havedirected actionsat Califbrnia to his notwithstanding fact that therewas no showingthat he actuallydistributedthe magazine, the Defendant deemed havepersonally is to directed actions California. AlthoughDefendant his at

2l 22
aa

alleges had no involvement it with the scheme disseminate to prerecorded telemarketing calls, Plaintiff hascertainlymade ouL prima.facie showingthat Defendantis not forthright in this a

z-)

24 resard. 25 26
ln Schlussel Schlussel, court held that obscene phonecalls from New York to v. the

27 28

-1

N D C A S E O . 0 7C V 2 2 2 6 M S( A J B )

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 8 of 24

, I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
t l l t

Californiasubjected callerto California's jurisdiction.Schlussel Schlussel,I 983) l4l the v. ( Cal.App.3d194,198-199. Analogously the Schlussel to case. Defendant's out-of-state conduct (or in-state conduct, depending uponwhat is revealed discovery). in whethcrit's actually disseminating prerecorded the tclemarketing callsor hiring a third partyto do same.subiects Def-endant iurisdiction California. to in i. Even A Sinsle Tortious Act May Create Jurisdiction

Even a singleact may supportlimited personaljurisdiction over a nonresident. McGeev. InternalionalLifb Insurance Co.. (1957)355 U.S. 220.78 S.Ct. 199. F'orexample. single a unlawful prerecorded telemarketing to a forum stateresidenl call may supportthe exercise o1' specific.jurisdiction overthe nonresident telemarkeler. Schwarzcr. ul. ('u/. Pruc. Guide; Scc et FederalCivil Procedure Befbrc Trial (The RutterGroup2005),3:208.cX) citing Intcrnct Doorway,Inc. v. Purks(SD MS 2001) 138 F.Supp.2d773,774 (ema1l messages alwaysthe are resultof active,purposeful communications. a singletortiousemail message a fbrum state so to resident may support exercise specific.jurisdiction). the of

12 l3 14 15 l6 17 l8 lg 20
)1

In this case, however, was not one tortiousact. Itather,Dcl'cndant it madea minimurnof 7 unlawful,prerecorded telemarketing callsto Plaintiff s numberassigned a pagingservice. to SeeDec.of ChadAustin.tl 3.

22 23
.lA

ii.

Out-of-StateElectronic Transmissions Mav Be a Basisfor Jurisdiction

L'+ 25

jurisdictionmay be based electronic Personal on transmissions intentionally directed to residents the forum stateand causingharm in the forum state.S'ce of Cody v. Ward. (D Ct 1991)

26 2 2g 7 8 C A S E O .0 7C V 2 2 2 6 M S( A J B ) N D

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 9 of 24

, I 2 3 4 ' 5 6 , 8 9 l0 l1 ,. l2 l3 t4 I5 16 17 Itt lg 20 2l 22

954 F.Supp.43,47 (fraudulentrepresentations email and telephone fbrum resident).The via to ' electronictransmission solicitationsis commonplace of and the courtsare recognizingthat such solicitationssubjectthe senderto jurisdiction in the forum where injury resultsfrom the receipt of thosemissives. Internet DoorwgL_lul-t luLb, (S.D.Miss.2001) 138F.Supp.2d773.779; VerizonOnlineService,s, v. Ralslq,(ED VA 2002)203 F.Supp 601,610 (nonresident's Inc. .2d sending millions of unsolicited email advertisements throughplaintiff s Internetserverin forum stateconstituted trespass chattels, to subjecting sender localjurisdiction)."By sending to an email solicitation the f'arreaches the earthfor pecuniary to of gain,one doesso at his own peril, and cannotthen claim that it is not reasonably foresecable he will be haledinto court in a that d i s t a n t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a n s w e r f o r t h e r a m i f l c a t i o n s o l - t h a t s o l i c iItn tte on a" o r t r w a . I n c . v . a i r n.D t v, ( P a r k s , S . D .M i s s . 2 0 0 1 ) 3 8F . S u p p . 2 d 7 7 3 . 7 7 9 . 1

An advertiser shouldnot be permitted takeadvantage moderntechnology to of via electronic means engage a tortiousact with consequences Californiaand which harmsa to in in citizenin California, and escape because usedelectronic he '| traditionalnotionsof 'iurisdiction means carryout a fong-distance SeeEDIAS So-/iv,ure to tort. Int'1,L.L.('. t,. BASISInt'l Lttl., ( D . A r i z . 1 9 9 6 )4 7 F . S u p p . 4 1 3 . 9

Of course, dissemination an unlawfulprerecorded the of telemarketing from outside call :^ z+ 25 the forum is analogous the sending an email,or any otherelectronic to of transmission, from jurisdiction. outsidethe forum, and the sending creates

26
L t

11

q

2g

C A S E O 0 7C V 2 2 2 6 M S( A J B ) N D

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 10 of 24

I

iii.

Courts Will More Likely Find Minimum ContactsBasedon a Commercial Transaction

2
a

Defendant's telemarketing donefor commercial was gain,which furthermilitatesin favor of finding that minimum contacts satisfied. are Reliance l{ut'l IntJem. v. I,innucleCas. Co. Assurance Corp.,(M.D.Ala. 2001) 160F.Supp.2d 1327,1333 (holding that..E-mails, letters like and phonecalls, can constituteminimum contacts, leastif the def'endant his aqentssendthe at or message pecuniary for gain ratherthan substantially personal purposes.").

T

n

5 6
7

8 9 l0 I1 12 13 l4 15 t6 17 l8 lg 20
1' ' 1

2.

Defendant Need Not Hove Even Directed lts Own Activities at California to Creote Jurisdiction The Acts of Defendant'sThird Party TelemarketerSuffice to Create Jurisdiction Even Without Defendant'sSrrecificDirection

i.

A nonrcsident defendant may be subject specilic.jurisdictionCalilbrnia to in based on local actsby an authorized agent. Mitrarut v. Iluu,es,(4tn Cir. 2004) 377 F.3d 402,407.

Defendant liablefor the damages is caused the unlawfultelemarketing by evenif it did not personally sendthem,if its authorized agentsentthem. In otherwords,Plaintiff needonly show that Defendant hireda telemarketing firm who had his authority1osendthc unlawful messages were sentto Plaintiff. Plaintiff hasclearlyestablished eitherHarrah's that that Entertainment a telemarketing or firm acting on its behalf sentprerecorded telemarketing messages Plaintiff s numberassigned a pagingservice.SeeDec. of ChadAustin,tlU 4-5 to to

22
and ExhibitsC and D. [t is undisputed that Plaintiff received prerecorded a telemarketing call from "Harrah's"regarding Harrah'sRinconCasinoin Valley Center.SanDiego County, California and it is undisputed that Plaintiff receiveda prerecorded telemarketingcall from lo C A S E O . 0 7C V 2 2 2 6 M S( A J B ) N D

:^ z+ 25 26 27 2g

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 11 of 24

,,
I

"Scott with Harrah's Entertainment."]

2 3
4 ' 5 6 , g 9 l0 l1 merelyclaimsthat neitherit nor its employees so. Howcver,as notcdabove.the partyon did whosebehalfunlawfultelemarketing doneultimatelybears is responsibility damages fbr flowing from the unlawful telemarketin{r. ii. Defendantis Subiect to Jurisdiction in California Simply Because Placed It lts Unlawful PrerecordedTelemarketingCall in the Stream of Commerce.

Sotably, perhaps and dispositively, Defendant notclaimthatit did nothirean does
independent third partytelemarketer engage telemarketing the Stateof California. It to in in

t2
l3 14 l5 16

"substantial l'he requisite connection" personal.lurisdiction fbr purposcs will alsousually be found wherea nonresident manuf-acturer goodsor services the lbrum s1ate. sells in evenif it doesn'thavean otfice,plantor personnel locally,as long as it has"placedproducts the stream in of interstate commerce with the expectation theywill be sold to consumers the fbrum that in state."World-Wide (1980)444 tJ.S.286,297-298.100 S.Clt. Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson 559.

t7 l8 19 20
)1

567; sec a/.soSchwarzer. al., ('al. Prac'.Guidc: I"ed. Cit,.Pnt. Ile./irc 7'riul ('l-RG2005), el (a 3:156-3:157. nonresident engaging commercial in activities thc lbrum slatemay be subject in to jurisdictionif it purposefully availeditself of the benef and protections statelaw, lbr rts of

"lt example sales by solicitation). is onlyreasonable companies distribute. . products fbr that . through regional distributors thiscountry anticipate in to being haled intocourtby plaintiffs in

22 Barone Brothersv. Interstate Disolqtl"ireworks(8rnCir. 1gg4)25 F.3d610. ^A theirhomestates." 25 614. 26 27 28 ll CASE 07CV 22 26 M S AJ B) NO. D (

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 12 of 24

r I 2 3 4 5 6 , 8 a 7 10 11

Indeed, an adequate if basisfor jurisdictionexists" non-resident a may be haledinto court anywherein the United States, because courtsgenerallyconcludethat it would be unfair to allow jurisdictiononly in his homestate, him to remainsubject personal to requiringthosewith claims against him to go to that statein orderto litigatesuchclaims. SeeCoolsuvings.com, v. IO Inc. Commerce Corn.(ND lL 1999)53 F.Supp.2d 1000,1003(nonresident wcbsite ownermay be haledinto courtanywhere the UnitedStates). in Because Defendant placedits unlawful prerecorded telemarketing call in the streamof , commerce callinga SanDiego,Califbmiatelephone by number.it hassubjected itself to suit in Californiafor any matters relatingto the disscmination its unlawfultclemarketing of message. iii. Even Mere Advertising Sufficesto Create SpecificJurisdiction if the Action

t2
13 t4
l)
t U

GGiltfu'".tiri'e.

Indeed, morethanadvertising no calculated reach to Califbrnia required constitute is to purposeful availment theprivileges doingbusiness California. UnitetJ of of in See States SECv.

( 1 t ( . , C a r r i l l o , l l 5 F . 3 d1 5 4 0 , 5 4 5 l l t r ' C i r .1 9 9 7 ) . 17
'to

Io

b.

This Litigation Arises From Defendant'sContacts jurisdiction. Plaintiff meetsthis prerequisite the establishment personal for of

19 20 ^1 zl c.

DefendantFails to Meet Its Burden of ShowingThat California's Exerciseof P. reasonable The burdenis on the nonresident provethat the forum's exercise to ofjurisdictionwould

22
" not comport with "fair play and substantialiustice. Amoco Egypt Oil Co. v. LeonisNavigation . C o . ( 9 t n C i r 1 9 9 3 )I F . 3 d8 4 8 , 8 5 1 .

;^ 25

26 nr
2
2g

7

n
C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 2 2 6 M S( A J B ) N D

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 13 of 24

I 2 3
1 '?

I.

The Extent of Defendant's Purposeful Interjection.

"Where a defendant who purposefullyhas directedhis activitiesat forum residents seeks jurisdiction,he must present compellingcasethat the presence someother to defeat a of jurisdictionunreasonable." considerations would render BurgerKing, 471 U.S. at 477. As set forth above,Defendant, eitherdirectlyor throughan agent. purposefully prerecorded directed telemarketing California. Defendant's into purposeful interjection particularly is of'fensive, because electronically it trespassed onto Plaintiff s privateproperty.Senator Hollingscalled automated calls"telephone terrorism." 137Cong.Rec. 6.205(dailyed.Nov. l. 19gl) Sl (statement Sen.Hollings)("lt is telephone of terrorism. and it hasgot to stop.")Defendant's unilateralinterlection into Californiais a lbrm of electronic trespass Califbrniapropertyand on shouldbe addressed a Californiacourt. in

5 6 , 3 9 l0 ll

t2
l3 14 l5 16 17 l8 l9 20 2l 22 23
1 a LA

This factorweighsin f'avorofjurisdiction.

2.

The Burden on Defendant in Defending in the Forum

In the contextof the "fair play" analysis, U.S. Supreme the Court hasnotedthat "modern transportation communication and havemadeit much lessburdensome a partysued1odef'end fbr himself in a Statewherehe engages economic in activity." Mc'Gee International v. Lifb Insurance Oo.,355 U.S. 220,223 (1957). Progress communications transportation in and has madethe defense a suit in a foreigntribunallessburdensome. of Ilanson v. Denckla,357 U.S. n 5 . 2 5 0 - 2 5 1( 1 9 5 8 ) .

25 26 27 2g r3 CASE 07CV 22 26 M S AJ B) NO. D (

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 14 of 24

r I 2 3
+
A

Further, Defendant must demonstrate litigatingthis disputein Californiawould be so that "gravely difficult and inconvenient"that he would be at a severedisadvantage comparison in to" Plaintiff. Burger King 471U.S.at 477. Defendant not evenattempted do so. has to

5 6 t 3 9 10 ll
t)

Defendant doesnot arguethat Californialitigationwould be more inconvenient than litigationelsewhere. Defendant doesnot suggest that the burdenon it would be substantially diffbrentfor it in Californiaas opposed Nevadaor Delaware.In the absence an expected to of ttiul of somelength,thereseems be little difference to whetherDefendant retainscounsel in Californiaor in Nevadaor Delaware appear its behalf. Regardless, to on Defendant not be can heardto complainof inconvenience when it was Defendant that madethe dccisionto scnd unlawfuladvertising into Calilbrniaralherthan liniit same1oits homeslateol-Nevada.

,; 14 l5 l6 l7 I8 19 20 21 22 23 ,\^

Further,Plaintiffexpects provethat Defendant othersundryHarrah'sentitiessoon to and to be namedas defendants madea lot of moneyfrom their illegal activitiesand that the costof defending this lawsuitis a relativelysmall percentage that profit. of

This factorweighsin f'avorofjurisdiction.

J.

The Extent of Conflict With the Sovereignty of the Defendant's State.

justice" is the possible One aspect "fair play and substantial of unfaimess a nonresident of to the state'slaw. However,in this case, Plaintiffhasbroughtone cause action,lbr violation of

25 of the federalTelephone ConsumerProtectionAct. As this federallaw applieseverywhere the in 26
27 'tA

2g

CASE NO. 07 CY 2226DMS(AJB)

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 15 of 24

, I
2 3 4 S 6 ' 8 9 l0 II 12 l3 t4 15 16 17
t o ro

UnitedStates, factor irrelevant. this is

this factorweighsin favor ofjurisdiction.

4.

The Forum State's Interest in Adjudicating the Dispute

4 stategenerally a "manifestinterest"in providingits residents has with a convenient forum for redressing injuriesinflictedby out-of-state actors.Burger King,47l U.S. a|473.

Whenthe T.C.P.A.'s prohibitions violated, injuryis visiteduponthe recipient are the of the call in California, and Californiahasan interest protecting citizensfrom suchharmsin in its an efficientand meaningful manner. The eflectiveness the T.C.P.A..in particular, of would be severely undercut defendants if could controlthe choiceof forum to the detrimcntof their victims. Virtually no T.C.P.A.cases would be prosecuted i1-the defbndants were not liablewhere they caused their damage. Creative delbndants could sal-ely avoid responsibility sccreting by their operations awayliom the locations which they arebombarding far pcrsons to wilh illegal faxesand phonecalls.Californiahasa stronginterest protecting citizensliom such in its machinations.

l9

20 2l 22 Therefore, thestate's Plaintiffs interest thisforumis substantial, thc both in and and

23 "interstate judicial system's law by interest" enfbrcing uniformfederal is lurthered finding in the 24 proper jurisdiction was where callto theconsumer received. the overa T.C.P.A. cause action of 25 26 27 28 rs (AJB) DMS CASE 07CV 2226 NO.

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 16 of 24

r I
2

Defendantdoesnot evenarguethat California hasno interestin protectingits citizens
from its unlawful conduct.

4

This factor weighs in favor ofjurisdiction.

5 6 ' 8 ^ 9 10 11 l2 r J2 I l4 l5 l6 17 l8 lg 20
11 L'

5.

The Most Efficient Juclicial Resolution of the Controversy

The most efficientiudicialresolution this controversy of would be for Californiacourtsto try this matterratherthanhavingthe particsgo throughthe routincof re-filing in Delaware. 6. The Importance of the Forum to Plaintiff s Interest in Convenient and Effective Relief,

For the samereasons the fbrum hasan intcrcstin adjudicating dispute, hasan that the it interest providing in convenient effective and reliel.

For all of the abovereasons. exercise personaljurisdiction the of would be f-air and reasonable underthe circumstances this casc. of d. Fewer Minimum ContactsAre Required When Reasonableness Dictates jurisdictionmay be established Personal with a lesser showingof minimum contacts if considerations reasonableness of dictate.Ochoav. J.B. Murtin & Sonsl'arms, Inc.. (9t,Cir. 2 0 0 2 2 8 7F . 3 d1 1 8 2 l,l g g , | n . 2 . )

22

^"^ l+ 25 26 2l 2g

Defendanthasdemonstrated six of the sevenfactorscourtsconsiderin determining that "reasonableness" weigh in favor of California's exerciseofjurisdiction. SeeBurger King Corp. (19S5).So,although purposeful v. Rudzewicz, U.S.462,476-77 471 Defendant's aimingof its 16 CASE NO. 07 CV 2226DMS(AJB)

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 17 of 24

, I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
l <

unlawfultelemarketing to a SanDiegotelephone call numbersuffices the exercise for of jurisdiction, even an attenuated showingof "purposefulavailment"would suffice given the reasonableness Californiaexercising jurisdiction. of 4. If Plaintiff Has Failed To Make a Showing of PersonalJurisdiction. The Court May Inrtu.t Motio. to Allo* Hi- to condu.t Ju.irdi"tionul ffi. Discoverv lf Plaintiff s evidence doesnot suffrceto convince Court that the instantMotion the shouldbe denied,Plaintiffrequests permission conductlimited discovery to ofjurisdictional facts. Wherethe motionto dismissis madeat the outsetof the case. court may continue the the hearingin order to permit suchdiscovery. ^\'ee Orchid Bioscienccs. Inc. v. St.Louis lJniversi\, ( s D c A 2 0 0 1 )1 9 8F . R . D . 1 0 .6 7 2 - 6 7 3 . 6

Plaintiff is entitledto this discovcryby makinga"primajitcle showingof personal jurisdiction." CentralStates, Southeast Southwest & AreasPension Fandv. ReimerExpress World Corp.,230 F.3d934,946 (7t' Cir. 2000). In this case, the Court is inclinedto denythe if Motion to Dismiss,Plaintiffrequests the Court ordera reasonablc that periodof time for jurisdictionaldiscovery be conducted.Altcrnatively. to Plaintifl-rcquests leaveto amendhis Complaint.

tJ

t6 t7 l8 lg 20

2l

III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiff hasmore than amply madeout a prima.facie case that Defendantwas involved

22
scheme.Specifically, Plaintiff hasoffereduncontrovefted n'n with the illegaltelemarketing 2+ 25 26 27 2g evidence that he received prerecorded a telemarketing promotinga Harrah'scasinoto his call California numberassigned a paging serviceand the man on the prerecorded to message saidthat 1i C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 2 2 6 M S( A J B ) N D

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 18 of 24

I I

he was "Scott with Harrah's Entertainment." SeeDec.of ChadAustin,tl 5 and Exhibit C.

evidence 2 Moreover,Plaintiff hasprovideduncontroverted that he receiveda prerecorded
a J

telemarketing promoting Harrah's Rincon Casinoto his Califomianumberassisned a call to pagingservice.He hasalsoofferedevidence, including a documentsubmitted by Defendant to the Rhode Island General Assembly,that Harrah'sEntertainment or at thc very leastmay is. be,the operator Hanah'sRinconcasino. see Dec.of ChadAustin,1lll 4, 6,7 ,8,9 and of Exhibits B, D, E, F. Further, websitelbr Hanah's RinconCasinospecifically the "Harrah's says, Entertainment @." SeeDec.of ChadAustin,tf 9. Finally,Defendant offeredno evidence has that it hasnot hireda third partytelemarketer engage telemarketing the Stateof to in in California. Given that Plaintilf hasas o1'yetbeendeniedany right to discovcry.his prima.fucie showingmore thanamplydemonstrates lactssufllcientto call Dcf-endant Calilbrniato into

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 l1 t2 l3

1 4 answerfor its unlawfulconduct. l5 t6 t7 18 l9
Defendant cannotcomplainthat it hasbeensuedin California--Defendant targeted its illegal telemarketing schemc California.caused at actionable harmsto Californiaresidents. is and responsible its own actions. fbr Defendant's Motion musttherefore denied. Alternatively, be

20 Plaintiff respectfully requests opportunity conductdiscovery the to and/orleaveto amendhis 21
ZI

Complaint. DATED: December 2007 21.

ZJ

24 25 26
zl
-n

By: /si ChadAustin CHAD AUSTIN, Esq.,Attorneyfor Plaintiff,JAMES M. KINDER Email: chadaustin(if cox.net

l8
NO. 07 CV 2226DMS(AJB) CASE

28

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 19 of 24

I 2
3 I. INTRODUCTION. ARGIJMENT... 4.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

. . . . . . . .I. ..........2

4II. 5 6 7 8
q

Plaintiff WasNot and is Not Subject a Pre-FilingOrderin SanDiego to S u p e r i o r o u r ti f H e i s R e p r e s e n tb y C o u n s e l . . . . . C ed ..............2 Defendant's Repeated TortiousActivity Within the Stateof California OvertheCourse More'l'han of ThreeYearsSubjects to the General It a n dS p e c i f i c u r i s d i c t i oo f t h i sC o u r t . . . J n .............3 l. Authoriton.lurisdiction... y .........3

B.

l0 ll 12 13 14 15 16 l7 18 l9 20 21 22
z) 24 25
2 6 t t l I t l

2.

PlaintiffNeedOnly Allegea Valid .lurisdiction'l'heory Make and Out a Prima Facie CaseRegarding Jurisdiction Defeat to I ) e f - e n d a nM' o t i o n . t s .........4 a. The Court DoesNot Reviewthe Evidence Determine to the Validityof Plaintiffs Theoryof Jurisdiction and Plaintiff s Theory,Basedon Defbndant's Unlawful T e l e m a r k e l i n o C a l i f o r n i a c s i d e n t ss V a l i d . tq R i. 2.

.......4

Def'endant Liable Basedon Its Unlawlul. is P r e r e c o r d e d l e m a r k e t i no a C a l i f o r n i a c s i d e n t . . . . . . . . . 5 Te ts R

b.

Plaintill'NeedOnly Make a l)rima F'ucieShowingo1-Facts to Defeatthe Motion to Dismissto the ExtentThat it C o n t e s tP l a i n t i f l ' s l l e q e d a c t s . s A F .........5

3.

Because I'laintiff s ClaimsArise Out of Defendant's Unlawful Telemarketing Within the Stateof California. CaliforniaHas J u r i s d i c t i oO v e rD e f e n d a n.t . n a.

.......6

Defendant'sContactsResultedFrom lts Own Actions That Createda "SubstantialConnection"BetweenDefbndantand Californiaand TherebyEnabled Californiato Exercise . ... .. .....7 Personal Jurisdiction OverDefendant..

27 28

t9
N D C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 2 2 6 M S( A J B )

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 20 of 24

2. Acts CommittedOutsideCalifornia"CausingEffect" Within CaliforniaSufficeto Establish " P u r p o s e f u l i r e c t i o n " . . .. D . . . . . .. . . . . . 7
J

a.

4 5 6 7 2. 9 l0 ll iii. ii.

EvenA SingleTortiousAct May Create Jurisdiction ..........8 Out-of-State Electronic Transmissions May Be a B a s i s o r . l u r i s d i c t i o.n . f . ...........8 CourtsWill More Likely Iiind Minimum Contacts Based a Commercial on Transac1ion.....l0

Defendant NeedNot Have Dvenl)irectedI1sOwn Activities Califbrnia Create at to Jurisdiction ....... 10 i. The Acts of Defendant's'l'hird Party Telemarketer Sufficeto Create Jurisdiction IlvenWithoutI)cf-endant's Snecific Direction...... I0 Defendant Subiecl .lurisdiction is to in C a l i f o r n i a i m p l yB e c a u slc P l a c e d S t Its UnlawfulPrerccorded'l'elcmarketing Call i n t h eS l r e a m f C o m m e r c e . . . . . o ......1I Even Mere AdvcrtisingSulliccsto Create SpecificJurisdiction the Action Stemsfiom if t h eA d v e r t i s i n g . . ...........12 .........12

t2
l3 t4 15 l6
iii. ii.

t7 18
l9 b. c.

This Litigation ArisesF-rom Defendant's Contacts. 'l'hal Defendant Failsto Meet Its Burdenof Showing California'sL,xercise Personal urisdiction of .f Over Defendant Unreasonable.. Is 2. 2. 3.

20 21 22
/,)

....12

The Extentof l)ef-endant's Purposelul Interjection.. ....13 .. 'l'he Burden Def-endant Defbndins the Forum.....13 on in in The Extentof Conflict With the Sovereignty the of D e f e n d a n tSst a t e . ' ..........14 The ForumState's Interest Adjudicating Dispute... in the l5

24 25 26 27

4.

20
CASE NO. 07 CV 2226DMS(AJB)

28

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 21 of 24

I

5.

The Most EfficientJudicialResolution the of Controversy...... The Importance the Forumto Plaintiff s of Interest Convenient Effective in and Relief.

...........16

2
6.
a J

.........16

4

d.

5 6 7 8 9 t0 ll t2 l3 t4 t5 16 t7 18 19 20 2l
lz z)

FewerMinimum Contacts Are Required When R e a s o n a b l e n e s c t a t e s .. . Dis .

. . . . . .1 6

4.

If Plaintiff Has FailedTo Make a Showingof Personal .lurisdiction, The Court May Postpone Ruling on the InstantMotion to Allow Its H i m t o C o n d u cJ u r i s d i c t i o n ails c o v e r y . . . . . . t D .........17 .. . . . 1 7

II I.

CONCLUSION

24
25 26
- 1

L I

2l
NO. 07 CV 2226DMS(AJB) CASE

28

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 22 of 24

1
, . " 4 5 6 -

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
page(s) Amoco Egttpt Oil Co. v. LeonisNavigution ('o. ( 9 t C i r .1 9 9 3 1 F . 3 d 4 8 . . . ) 8 Bancro-ft& Masters, Inc. C z t 1 9 ' h i r . 2 0 0 0 ) z 3 1 . 3 d , a1 0 g 6 .

..........12

.............4

Burone r . - ( 8 * c iBrothers v. InterstateDisolq.t Firework,s r 9 g 4 ) 2F . 3 d 1 0 . . . 5 6 z 8 9 l0 ll 12 13
7 A

. . . . . .rr
......4,7.13-16

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz ( 1 9 8 54 7 1U . S . 6 2 , 4 7 9 - 4 8 1 0 5S . C t . 2 1 7 4 . . . ) 4 0, Calder v. Jones ( 1 9 8 44 6 5r J . S7 8 3 . 7 9 0 . 1 0S . C t . 4 8 2 . . ) . 4 1

.......7

('anlrul Slutes,Soulheasl& Soulhwest Areas I'ension l.'undv. Rcimer F.xpress l,l/orld(.'orp. ( 7 r r ' C i r . 2 0 02 3 0F . 3 d9 3 4 . . . 0) .......17 Codv v. Ward

' ''

(D Ct 1997) F.Supp . . . 954 . 43

. ...8-9

OoolSaving,s.com, v. IQ (lommerce Inc. Corn. ( N DI L 1 9 9 95 3F . S u p p . 1 0 0 0 . 16 ) 2d
1'7 '

l5

.........12

t

('reJit Lyonnais Securities (LISAI, Inc. v. Alcantura

18 19

( 2 n a C i1 9 9 9 ) 1 8 3 F . 3 d 1 5 1 . . . r. Dala Discoverlt,Inc. v. S)tstems T'echnologv Associales, Inc. ( 9 t r ' C i r1 9 7 7 ) 5 7F . 2 d1 2 8 5 . . . 5 EDIA,S Soliwure Int'1,L.L.C.v. BASIS Int'l Ltd. ( D . A r i z . 1 9 9 6 )4 7F . S u p . 4 1 3 9 p . GlencoreGrain RollerdamB.V. v. Shivnath Rai Harnarain ('o.
, t (n9h" ^ 'C i r2 0 0 22 8 4 . 3 d 1 1 4 . . ' . ) F 1

........5

/.u
)t 22 ^. LJ

.........6

......9

..........3

24 25
2 6

Hansonv. Denckla ( 1 9 5 83 s 7u . s .2 3 s . . . )
t t l / t /

.........13

27
28

))
D C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 2 2 6 M S( A J B ) N

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 23 of 24

I 2
J

Harris Rutslqt& Co. Ins. Services, Inc. v. Bell & Clements LttJ.

(9tl' 2003) F.3d1122. Cir. 328
In re Shieh ( 1 9 9 3 ) 7C a l . A p p . 4I' h 5 4 ,1 1 6 6 - 1 1 6.7 . 1 I . . Internet Doorwa_v, Inc. v. Parks

.........2

4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll t2 13 14

(S DMS 2 0 0 1 ) 3 8 .Supp.2d773 1 F
Lake v. Lake 8 1 9 t c i r . 1 9 8 7 ) 1 7F. 2 d 1 4 1 6.. h McGee v. Inlernational Li_/b InsuranceOo. ( 1 9 5 7 3 s s L J . S .2 0 . . . ) 2 Milrarut v. Hawes ( 4 t ' C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) 3 7 73 d 4 0 2 . . . F. Ochoa v. ,J.l].Martin & Sons Farms, Inc'. ( 9 t n C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) 2 8 73 d 1 1 8 2 . . F. Orchid Biosciences, Inc. v. St.Louis Universi\;

8,9

.. . . . . . 4

. . .. . . 8 .I 3

........10

.......16

( s Dc A 2 0 0 11 9 8 - . R . D . 6 7 0 ) r
( 1 9 5 23 4 21 J . S . 4 3 7 . . . )

l 5 Perkins v. BenguetMining Co. 16
...........4

1 7 RelianceNal'l Indem. Co. v. Pinnucle Cas.Assurunce(lorp. l8
( M . D . A l a . 2 0 0 l 1 6 0F . S u p p . 2 d 2 7 . . . ) 13 ........10

1 9 Schlusselv. Schlussel 20 2l 22
ZJ

( 1 9 8 3 1 4 1C a l . A p p . 3 d 4 . . . . ) 19

.......7,8

Uniled StatesSEC v. Carrillo ( l l t n C i r .1 9 9 7 1 1 5F . 3 d1 5 4 0 . . ) VerizonOnline Services, Inc. v. Ralslqt ( E D V A 2 0 0 2 ) 0 3F . S u p p . 2 d 6 0 l 2

.....12

..............9

24

I4/NS, Inc. v. Farron ( 5 1 ' C i r1 9 8 9 ) 8 4F . 2 d2 0 0 . . . . 8 25

.........6

26
Z I
aa 1,J

28

N D C A S E O . 0 7C V 2 2 2 6 M S( A J B )

Case 3:07-cv-02226-DMS-AJB

Document 10

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 24 of 24

,l

-

World-Wide VolkswagenCorp. v. lYoodson

( 1 e 8 0 )4 4 U . 5 . 2 8 6 . . . 4

.......11

2
r J -

Statutes

4
5 6 7 8 ^ o '

4 7U . S . C .2 2 7 ( b x l ) ( a X i i i ) . $
Cal.CodeCiv.Pro.Q39l.7. C a l . o d e i v .P r o . 4 1 0 . 0 1 0 . . . . . . C C $ Other Authoritv Release Number95-310 the Fedcral of Communications Commission,

............5
............2 ...........2

C C D o ckeN o .9 2 -9 0, FCCRcd12391 1995) , s. 35. t 10 ( par 34Schwarzer, el. Cal. Prac.Guide:Federul(livil Procedure et BqforeTrial ( T h e u t t eG r o u p 0 0 5 ) , 3 : 2 0 8 . 9 0 . R r 2

.........5

10 1l
1')

..........8

Schwarzer, al., Cal. Prac.Guide:Fed.Civ. Pro. Before et Trial (TRG 005).3:156-3:157... 2 13 1 4 1 3 7 C o n g . R e c . S l 6 , 2 0 5l y e d . N o v^ 1 9 9 1 ) (dai T. l5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
L-

...........1I ...........13

aA

25 26
)'7

24 CASE 07CV 2226 NO. DMS(AJB)

2g